CALUYO v. DAVITA INC., 13-2059. (2014)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20140505070
Visitors: 9
Filed: May 16, 2014
Latest Update: May 16, 2014
Summary: ORDER The Court amends its opinion filed May 5, 2014, as follows: On page 2, line 5 of text — the word "statue" is corrected to read "statute." UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Christine Caluyo appeals the district court's order dismissing her civil complaint. We have reviewed parties' briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Although Caluyo contends that she should benefit from the continuing treatment rule to t
Summary: ORDER The Court amends its opinion filed May 5, 2014, as follows: On page 2, line 5 of text — the word "statue" is corrected to read "statute." UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Christine Caluyo appeals the district court's order dismissing her civil complaint. We have reviewed parties' briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Although Caluyo contends that she should benefit from the continuing treatment rule to to..
More
ORDER
The Court amends its opinion filed May 5, 2014, as follows:
On page 2, line 5 of text — the word "statue" is corrected to read "statute."
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Christine Caluyo appeals the district court's order dismissing her civil complaint. We have reviewed parties' briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Although Caluyo contends that she should benefit from the continuing treatment rule to toll the statute of limitations, we reject this contention because her negligence claim does not relate to "a particular condition [that] was improperly treated and diagnosed." Grubbs v. Rawls, 369 S.E.2d 683, 686 (Va. 1988) (quoting Fenton v. Danaceau, 255 S.E.2d 349, 350 (Va. 1979). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Caluyo v. Davita Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00497-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va. July 25, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Source: Leagle
